Garrison v. Otto, 311 Neb. 94

Underlying ex parte protection order (Mar 18, 2020) was issued after a Feb 26, 2020 incident where Otto’s vehicle allegedly swerved toward Garrison in a courthouse parking lot; affidavit described prior incidents and prior orders against Otto.
Otto contested the initial order; the district court affirmed after a hearing and this Court previously affirmed that decision on appeal.
Garrison filed a petition to renew the protection order within 45 days of expiry (Mar 17, 2021); the court issued an ex parte renewal and set a hearing when Otto contested.
At the renewal hearing, Garrison testified she remained fearful and there had been no material change in circumstances; Otto denied intent and cited no violations since the original order.
The district court found (1) the prior finding of abuse was law of the case, (2) no material change in relevant circumstances, and (3) renewal was necessary to prevent future harm; it affirmed the 1-year renewal.
Otto filed two notices of appeal; the Supreme Court dismissed the first as premature under the tolling statute and affirmed the renewal on the timely appeal.

Issue	Garrison's Argument	Otto's Argument	Held
Timeliness / jurisdiction of appeals	Garrison: terminating motion tolled appeal time; first notice was ineffective	Otto: filed notices as of right (sought review)	First notice dismissed as premature under §25-1912(3); second notice timely; merits reached on second appeal
Sufficiency of evidence to renew protection order (likelihood of future harm)	Garrison: prior finding of domestic abuse stands; no material change; petitioner need only prove renewal facts by preponderance; renewal protects against future harm	Otto: no new abuse or violations since original order; Feb 26 incident was distracted driving, insufficient to justify another year	Renewal affirmed. Court may rely on prior finding of abuse (law of the case), consider passage of time, nature/severity/frequency of past abuse, relationship dynamics, and any conduct since the order; trial court credibility determinations entitled to deference

Maria A. on behalf of Leslie G. v. Oscar G., 301 Neb. 673 (2018) (domestic abuse protection orders are prospective, like injunctions; courts must weigh likelihood of future harm and surrounding circumstances)
Robert M. on behalf of Bella O. v. Danielle O., 303 Neb. 268 (2019) (threshold finding of abuse is required for a protection order to remain in effect)
Sarah K. v. Jonathan K., 23 Neb. App. 471 (2015) (statutory scheme imposes no time limit for filing a petition after prior abuse)
Vance v. Iowa Dist. Court for Floyd County, 907 N.W.2d 473 (Iowa 2018) (reversed multi‑year extension where original order did not involve violence or threats and respondent complied)
S.H. v. D.W., 139 N.E.3d 214 (Ind. 2020) (reversed extended protective order based on a singular, isolated incident where parties had since separated)